The newspapers went to town with the Ng Boon Gay sex scandal. Predictably. But from a reading of all the English newspapers, I think BT had the best report. Because it “joined the issues’’. So ST and TNP went with all the salacious details, with not very much on what the prosecution and defence locked horns over. Today was too general.
I guess titillating reading always sells but I got quite jaded with all the details of carparks and intimate encounters in enclosed spaces. My feelings go out entirely to Ng’s wife and Sue’s absent husband. I really hope the prosecution has a good case or it would merely have afforded the public a good sexy scandal that would irreparably damage all the parties concerned – with nought to show for it…
Anyway, looks like the court thinks Ng has a case to answer, going by the judge’s brief remarks that there is “some evidence, not inherently incredible, that satisfies each of the elements in all four charges’’. I wish people won’t use double negatives…what’s “inherently’’ incredible anyway?
The reason I liked BT’s reporting is because it told me things the others don’t have. Like how the prosecution took issue with the defence submission that the oral sex was not “completed’’ and hence, no “gratification’’ occurred. It was more like “frustration’’. You know, I always thought defence counsel was being facetious when he made the point before the trial broke…Seems it’s deadly serious.
I had to read both ST and BT for the works though.
Defence: She didn’t complete it. So there was no gratification. Instead there was frustration.
Prosecution (who quotes from Oxford dictionary): Gratification isn’t linked with satisfaction. (this is based on ST reporting)
Defence: If she didn’t complete it, it shows she never expected something in return. (this is based on BT reporting)
BT also reported a “celebratory’’ lunch by Sue for Ng to toast some contracts she won with CNB and NCS. After which Ng propositioned her. The prosecution said this showed a link between sex and contracts. Defence said this was a “distinct shift’’ from prosecution position that there was no need for there to be link to say that Ng is guilty of corruption.
BT also reported prosecution talking about Sue rejecting clandestine rendezvous, including a trip to Macau. Ng said that he was the one who turned the trip down.
The prosecution also referred to other official witnesses who said that Ng should have declared conflict of interest and recused himself from decision making. Defence thinks that’s making quite a leap from non-disclosure to corrupt intent.
Anyway, what am I doing??? Go buy BT.